The South raised an army because, in their eyes, they were a soverign nation that didn't want a foreign army on their soil. This sounds kind of like the reason the Continental Army sprang up.....because they didn't want British foreigners on their soil......

Maybe I'm over-simplifying things, but it sure seems like a good reason to create an army---to keep potential agressors out of our "backyard".

"But Lincoln did nothing overt before that fact, in which Virgina voted to cast her lot with the other secessionist states all of whom, in effect, declared war by declaring themselves soverign nations and siezing Federal property."
- Ole

Ole,
You are gonna have to help me with this one...How is secession and the declaration of soverignity (SP?)tantamount to a declaration of war?

East and West Germany? Pakistan and India? Taiwan and China? US and Britain?

If we're going to blame Lincoln for not being the *first* to allow his country to peacefully dismember itself, then we may as well blame him for not discovering penicillen, the internal combustion engine and rock'n'roll...

as opposed to reinforcing Ft Sumter which is located squarely inside Charleston Harbor? At that time, S. Carolina considered themselves a part of a separate nation, no longer part of the United States. Furthermore, the CSA had a right to protect property of their nation.
Remember, at that time secession and the legality thereof had not been settled. The CSA position was as valid as was Lincoln's position that secession was not legal. It was at that time untested.

If we look at 19th century events thru 21st century filters, we are gonna get a skewed view of history.

There are examples of peaceful secession, Hank. Someone on another board is fond of citing Norway and Sweden. However, discussions of same usually involve two countries severing a tie -- not one country splitting.

Ft. Sumter was US property and deeded legally to the US government. It was built to defend Charleston from foreign naval invasion. It was not the property of South Carolina, whatever kind of nation it called itself. That SC could declare itself an independent nation does not change the fact that it had contracted with the "foreign nation" to encourage it to build an island and thereon build a fort to protect its interests. And then it changes its mind and declares: mine! That ain't 21st century eyes, Bama.

Try this. If we are neighbors and we both desire a shed to park our mowers in. So I build a shed on your lot. Gives us both a stake -- your lot, my building. Now, years later, you say it's your building because it's on your lot. And my John Deere SST15 is also yours.

Somewhere in there, saying my building is actually yours, because you say it is, misses a rather large point.

sorry Ole,
leaving out hte question of the mower because it is not germaine...I believe the courts would say that it is indeed my shed. It is a permanent structure on my land. Now the courts may say that certain compensations be made, but would not take kindly to you posting armed guards around it to keep me from having it.

and you started the 21st century analagy with the JD mower idas...don't believe they were around in the period under
consideration.

Let's all take a deep breath and go back and read the original post of this thread. It's a valid question and there's plenty of room for expounding on it. But we've strayed way too far. If yet another thread is needed on who was at fault for the war, start one. But let's make an effort to keep this on a constitutional/colonial-era base.

So, for me, the question becomes, what would The South have been like without slavery?

Would The North and South still have had such notably different economic and cultural differences? After all, they were two very different societies occupying one continent before the CW broke out - an agrarian/agricultual society and an idustrial one. As such, slavery or no, they were destined to clash.

I often hear that the North was an industrial society but the reality is a touch more than just that. There were considerably more farms north of the Mason Dixon than south of it.

There was more industry north of the mason dixon because there was a considerably freer economy there w/ more industry as well as more agriculture.

Farms were generally better & more efficently run. Why, a variety of reasons, IMO a lack of slavery being a major factor. Throughout the US areas that lacked slavery did considerably better, why? My father would say a different work ethic but I'm not certain about that. A variety of reasons... and I don't pretend to know them all.

The economics & mechanics of slavery created an elite slaveholding/property/land owner society that created a defacto feudalistic society.

IMO w/out the national sin of slavery this would have been a greater nation; and w/out slavery there would have been no Civil War.

As with any other war, think of the lives which were lost in the cw (approximately 600K?). Were there any among them who would have been great scientists, physicians, statesmen, etc.? Were there any among them who was great enough to end future wars? What would our country be like today if we had not had to deal with (and still do) the issues of race? We'll never know. Just another one of my rambling thoughts.

Both the north and south began as agrarian societies. It was with the initiation of slavery in the 17th century that the 2 societies began to differ. A question we'll never be able to answer is If slavery had never been introduced to the south and continued (the north did have slaves but eventually all of them abolished it in the early 19th century) would the 2 societies been so divergent?

"Again I pose the question, if slavery did not exist would the civil war have ever occurred or state secession ever been an issue. My thoughts are no."

Doc C

A civil war might not have occurred, but I do believe seccession would have inevitably raised it's head over some issue. For example: Utah and the Church of Later-Day Saints. Even today, there is potential for secessionest movements in the various States. I do not speak of the several dingbat causes that come to all of our minds; rather, there are some very valid scenarios that can lead into secessionist thought.

What you say about the divergence of the two societies beginning very early in our colonial history is substantially correct. Because it was never a profitable system in the northern states, the large plantation feudal type system did not develop in the northern states.

There were slaves in the north, but not on the scale as there came to be in the deep south. The northern states gradually abolished slavery, at least officially. But a few slaves did remain. For example, in the 1860 Census, there were 18 slaves in New Jersey.

As we all know, the Emancipation Proclamation only covered the slaves in the areas held by the Confederacy. Therefore, the few slaves remaining in the north were not freed. As I have read in more than one account, there were still nine slaves in New Jersey when the Civil War ended. They were not freed in New Jersey as the New Jersey legislature early in 1865 rejected the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. The last nine slaves were not freed until the amendment was ratified by the required number of states in December of 1865. Obviously, the number is insignificant, but it is ironic that the final slaves to be freed were in the north and not the south.

The two societies diverged because what was in their economic self interest became different due to what the land gave them. Eventually, what was beneficial to one side became detrimental to the other.

It was inevitable that the two would clash. For example, the Nullification Crisis showed a clash due to conflicting economic interests. The country might have come apart then if there had been a less energetic president than Andrew Jackson.

Your question is what would have happened if there had been no slavery? Its like saying: "Would there have been a civil war if the north had not been the north, and the south had not been the south?"

If the plantation system had been profitable on a large scale in the northern states, it would have developed there. Men act in their own economic self interest. It is easy to oppose another system on a moral basis when it isn't in your interest to have it yourself.

I wonder if it's significant which part of New Jersey those slaves were located. Here's a guess: The southern portion of the Garden State is actually below the Mason-Dixon Line, if that imaginary line was extended through the state. Robert E. Lee's family had a summer home in Cape May. Do you reckon loyalties were significantly divided regionally in New Jersey in the way they were, say, in Maryland?

Even so, it's interesting to learn New Jersey, regarded as a northern state, did not ratify the 13th amendment. Very odd. Didn't know that. Perhaps NJ should have been considered as a border state.

Maybe New Jersey could have seceded from itself (like West Virginia? Uh-oh. New thread alert). Then we really could have had a South Joisey.

These are figures from the 1790 US Census - New York slaves 21,324; New Jersey 11,423; These numbers pale to Virginia's 292,627 and South Carolina's 107,094. However, NY and NJ did have a significant slave population. The north's relatively small slave population made it much easier to abolish slavery vs the south. While visiting my daughter in NYC several years ago visited an excellent exhibit on New York's slave population.

To take this "what if" question a little further, if slavery didn't exist, would this have changed the make up of the colonial states (could Virginia have been a dominant state?) such that the Revolutionary War ever occurred or at a later period or gone down the road of Canada and other commonwealth nations? If the answer is yes, then one could speculate that without slavery the course of North American history would have been dramatically altered. Again, like the members of this board, I despise that horrible institution but only go down this road just for discussion purposes.

Pvt - Have to dispute your comment regarding NJ and the Mason-Dixon line. The M-D line was created in order to settle border disputes between - Del, Md, Penn, Vir. (now WV) in the 1760's. Be glad to see any information on the NJ portion that you have. By the way I live about 15 miles from the M-D line "on the good side".

You are correct about the M-D line taking a southerly heading when it hits Delaware. But the M-D line also serves as a cultural boundary between north and south, and this concept could make things a little grayer (literally and figuratively, I suppose). I brought this up only because, years ago when we visited Cape May and accidentally stumbled across the Lee vacation home, I remember reading somewhere — a brochure perhaps — that south Jersey was a vacation destination point for many southerners. In the technical sense, Cape Ma, et al, are not below the M-D line, they are clearly east of it. But in the cultural sense it might be an entirely different matter. When it's pointed out to me that something is below the M-D line, I can grasp what it implies. Who talks about east or west of the M-D line? I honestly don't know if this is true or not, but you have to figure southerners must have found kindred spirits in South Jersey. Why else head north for vacation?